Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VK35 (talk | contribs) at 22:36, 14 July 2007 (typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ST47

Voice your opinion (talk page) (63/8/3); Scheduled to end 12:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ST47 (talk · contribs) - I'm proud and pleased to present my nomination of ST47 for adminship. ST47 may be familiar to some of you from his bot work, from Misplaced Pages:Bot requests to the Bot Approval Group. ST47 is a friendly, civil editor whose interactions with me have been entirely pleasant: I'm continuously impressed by his work ethic, and his dedication to the project. It should be plain to see that having the administrator tools would be a great boon to his work with the bots, and to his work with identifying vandals. I'm convinced that he would be an excellent choice as a Misplaced Pages administrator.⇒ SWATJester 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is not actually ST47's 5th RFA. His 3rd nom was declined, throwing off the number scheme.

Co-nomination from Sean William: I first ran into ST47 at WP:RFCU, where he has recently begun clerking. ST47 has been doing an excellent job both there and elsewhere, especially the bot approvals group, where he is the only non-administrator. I was quite astonished to learn that ST47 was not an administrator; He has done quite a lot of work relating to the inner processes of Misplaced Pages, and has an excellent work ethic. Swatjester has said everything that I would like to say already, so I say this: ST47 would be a great asset to Misplaced Pages if given the tools. Sean William @ 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from TheFearow: I met ST47 at WP:BRFA when I was first starting out in the bot world. Since then, I have run into him many many times, especially requesting things that could be done as an administrator. With over 130 contributions to AIV, and a huge amount of contributions to many other maintenance pages, i'm certain promoting him can do nothing but good to the community. I was incredibly surprised several days ago when I discovered he was not an administrator, and I don't get that much. Finally, I would 100% support ST47 in any situation - he's a civil, stable, and valuable contributor. This is the sort of editor that adminship iwas intended for. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Shalom : I guess this is already overkill, but I've been waiting several months for ST47 to volunteer his services toward cleaning the administrative backlogs. His general participation, and his specific contributions to the complex workings of the Bot Approvals Group, demonstrate a unique set of talents shared by few others among us. Shalom 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I accept the nomination. --ST47Talk 12:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's statement:

Good evening, ladies, gentlemen, and aliens of all ages! The nominators have said almost everything, but I'd like to add a few points. I made my first edit around August 2006. In Misplaced Pages, I make contributions in a variety of categories, including to bots, where I run several, wrote more, and am a member of the approvals group, and to checkuser, where I am a clerk. I'm active on IRC, however, of course, any binding discussion must take place on-wiki. In my time here, I've done about everything, including speedy tagging, recent changes patrol, and spam patrolling. With regards to bots, I run User:STBot, a category changing bot, User:BAGBot, a bot request reporting bot, User:AccReqBot, a account requests archiving bot, and User:STBotD, an interwiki bot. We've made over 100,000 edits. I've also written User:EBot and User:EBot2, archiving bots for abuse reports and suspected sock puppets. I've never been blocked, never received any vandalism warnings, and I have no userboxes on my userpage. Recently, I've been asked to RfA by several users, I've had 3 previous RfAs, and one declined nomination (linked below), and 2 editor reviews (1|2).

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: The most important thing I would do is be available. I can watch Administrator Intervention against Vandalism and the Admin's Noticeboard. I can also watch for users using the "!admin" flag on IRC. I have email enabled, so I can be contacted that way, and I have a system at User:ST47/Now that will allow anyone to contact me without me even turning on the computer's monitor. As for other stuff, I can augment my duties at Requests for Checkuser by blocking sockpuppets where appropriate. I would try to keep the speedy deletion backlog down by deleting inappropriate articles and removing tags from articles which should stay.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: My best contributions to Misplaced Pages are my bots, as they continue improving Misplaced Pages and its articles while I am away. I consider the most important of the bots I've written to be User:BAGBot and its IRC companion, as it both makes an on-wiki report and informs me and other users of every new edit to a BRFA immediately. I've written temporary bots, such as one to update Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Kentucky/Watchall while the primary bot is inactive, and another to help User:White Cat update his user talk archives. My most active bot is User:STBot, who recently did some WikiProject tagging, but also is approved for replacing categories.

One of my favorite things to do with Misplaced Pages is to sit down with a cup of tea (Earl Grey, if you must know) and write a quick bot that gathers information and makes a report. Not only is it helpful to those who request it, doing this gives me experience with new things and gives me code I can reuse later.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Not really. There are a few users who have been trolling me on IRC, but that isn't an editing conflict, and on-wiki, I avoid needless conflict altogether, instead trying to resolve problems through reasonable means. As an example, a while ago someone disagreed with a BRFA I closed, and asked for a second opinion. Instead of saying that my decision was final, I asked another BAG member to review it. As an admin I will get into conflicts over decisions and actions I make, but I will make every effort to see the other side's point of view, understand his opinion, and either reverse my decision, explain why I think my decision is right and refer him to a noticeboard where he can get a third opinion, or ask for a third opinion myself.

4. Question from Heimstern: Would you comment on what has changed since your last RfA and why this is a better time for the community to grant you sysophood?

A: Of course I would comment! Since my last RfA, I've become more involved in the Bot Approvals Group and Checkuser clerking, both areas where sysophood could be helpful. One person mentioned that I "might be a little too fast with the delete button" - I feel that now, perhaps through being on op on IRC, I'm better able to judge when action needs to be taken and when discussion can solve a problem. I also had a problem with civility then, I feel that I'm more able to act in a mature way on Misplaced Pages. All in all, I've started doing several things what would allow me to be more of a mature user.

5. Question from Trusilver: Following up the previous question: During your last RfA, there were specific complaints concerning incivility. What are your views of your behavior during your last RfA? Looking back five months, what would you have changed about your previous RfA?

A: Completely wrong. I was incivil to other users, and that should never happen, not in the real world, but especially not on an online project. I apologize to anyone involved in that.

In regards to the second part, I would have remained calm and commented with reason rather than irrational attacks.

General comments

• See ST47's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Requests for adminship/ST47
• Requests for adminship/ST472
• Requests for adminship/ST47 2
• Requests for adminship/ST47 3
• Requests for adminship/ST47 4
• Requests for adminship/ST47 5

• Links for ST47: ST47 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ST47 before commenting.

Discussion

• "I've never been blocked, never received any vandalism warnings, and I have no userboxes on my userpage." (Quoted from above.) LOL! Shalom 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  You laugh, but there are some who consider those equal evils. (kidding) --ST47Talk 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  They could consider this argument as canvassing, too :P Giggy _UP 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per Pedro below. If the civility issues have been resolved, then that's good enough for me. This is an RFA, not editor review and we're not debating whether ST47 should be editor of the week. The question is whether we trust him with the tools, not whether he is a prolific writer. --BigΔT 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nom. Sean William @ 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
3. I thought you didn't want to be an admin! I say give him the mop, as in my opinion it's long overdue! :) -- Stwalkerster talk 14:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Support I've seen examples of this user's good judgment – so I don't believe there is a concern there. I also don't see any more civility problems and think that they will handle conflicts reasonably. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia but that does not mean people can't help in other ways. Best of luck. GDonato (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Mammoth Support - as per BigDT and GDonato. I haven't seen a single civility issue regarding ST47 for a very long time and his widespread contributions to wikipedia projects especially his bots and Requests for checkuser is very enticing. Since its nearly 5 months after his last RfA..I believe its about time he was given the mop...--Cometstyles 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - Good editor, and I think after 6 RFA's, it's time to give him the mop! Politics rule 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. As far as I can discern the issues in the last RfA have been addressed and the user continues to make valuable contributions and seems to understand policy well. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Semi-automated Support Seriously, this guy is one of the monarchs of bots. Being on the help channel every day, I can see examples of his good judgment. Best of Luck! —« ANIMUM » 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Civil, bot-guru, helpful. Actively around on spam-fighting IRC channel. I am sure he will make good use of the mop. --Dirk Beetstra 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - I've been impressed with ST47 whenever I've seen him. I've reviewed his contribs and I believe he will be fine as an administrator. I've also reviewed the opposes, and there's nothing in them that concern me at this present time, I believe they focus more on previous concerns which I feel have be answered. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Support This user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Nothing to suggest that the user will misuse admin tools. To me, answer to Q3 suggests that he'll take criticism under consideration, and isn't afraid of changing his mind if he does something wrong. PGWG 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

    SupportI am going to support this time. I think this user does a tremendous amount of good old work, and my only reservation was civility, but I think he is at a place where that won't be an issue. Good luck!Stillstudying 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

    Duplicate vote temporarily stricken. --ST47Talk 13:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

13. Support. Candidate has a satisfactory overall record; prior issues have been addressed. Newyorkbrad 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. Appears to have improved tremendously from the last RFA, and, with the civility concern seemingly remedied, this user should make a good administrator. Carom 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
15. Support as co-nom. Shalom 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Support as nom ⇒ SWATJester 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. The candidate demonstrates need for the tools. I have encountered this canididate (and supported them in previous RfAs) before and find them more than suitable for adminship. To address opposers, I offer this argument. I work in an amusement park. I drive roller coasters. I don't deal well with people, so being a roller coaster driver is a good choice as I sit isolated in my booth for long stretches of time. Other employees do deal well with people, and they work in merchandise and games, where their dispositions are beneficial. Both merchandise and roller coaster driving are essential to the park's operation, but to force either of us to switch positions would be a mistake. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Civility concerns raised in the past RFAs seem to have improved. Can be trusted with tools I think. IronGargoyle 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
19. "Good evening, ladies, gentlemen, and aliens of all ages!" - that did it for me. Giggy _UP 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
20. Support looks like a good user to me. Acalamari 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Article writers don't need tools, policemen however do. 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Good answer to #3. --LtWinters 22:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. As co-nom, and as they are a great editor :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
24. Strong support. Some users are simply not good writers, and if they tried, would seriously reduce the quality of Misplaced Pages. ST47 is a great user who will use the tools wisely. Thus, ST47 should be given the mop and bucket. --Mschel 01:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    I don't know if that's a compliment or not :) (kidding, obviously) --ST47Talk 01:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

25. Support Great answers. I dig the personality. Give him toolz. the_undertow 01:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
26. Yes please. -- John Reaves (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
27. Support—he's not here for the ride. In my interactions with him, I received the impression that he is not secretive, overbearing, or arrogant about his bot work. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he has shown that 1. he can use the tools well and 2. he can be trusted. Gracenotes § 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
28. Change to support based on clarification of Q3. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 02:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you, sir! --ST47Talk 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

29. Support (and wow, up to number 5! is this a record of some type?) Viridae 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    As a matter of fact, sir, it's only my fourth: I declined my third. --ST47Talk 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

30. Support A valuable contributor (if not article writer) who has use for the tools, but would not, I believe, abuse them.--Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Great editor, would make a great admin. Smokizzy (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
32. Support - ultimately, thoug not a 'pedia builder per se I think WP has more to gain than to lose by you being an admin; if there are future civility problems we all know where they can be discussed. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
33. Support I believe this editor has put in enough time and work, and shows that they still have the heart through it all to continue. Plus, their editing skills aren't that shabby :). Jmlk17 05:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
34. Strong Support Really deserves the tools. Thanks for mentioning my few bots in there that you kindly wrote - much appreciated. You are long past needing the mop, and I believe this is the time for you :) — E _bots 07:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
35. Support I've changed my mind. On reviewing his clarification on Q3 and looking over his edit history. I think that the benefits of such a strong editor with a mop in his hand makes up for any lack of mainspace experience he might have. Trusilver 07:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you vary much, sir! --ST47Talk 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

36. Support - in the several months since your last RfA, it is clear that the issues that were raised there have been dealt with. ck lostsword•T•C 10:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
37. Oh what the heck. —AldeBaer (c) 11:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
38. Support needs the tools. —Anas 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
39. Strong Support Good user, fair, and sorry for the confusion on my part. He deserves the mop, give it to him!Stillstudying 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
40. Meh. I opposed him last time for lack of mainspace editing... still I see none of that. However, he blatantly could do with being an admin, instead of bugging others to do stuff for him. He's shown he's trustworthy. Maybe 5th time lucky? Majorly (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
41. Support or he'll continue cluttering WP:AIV and WP:UAA ;). -- lucasbfr 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
42. Weak support User is worthy, but bots will take over the world. Membership of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD implies ST is not needlessly beaurocratic. In short, why not? who cares? --Bswiki 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    This account's first edit was 11 July 2007. --Bryson 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

43. Support - I can't see any problems. Clearly experienced and aware of policy, and the civility concerns are in the past and insufficient to merit an oppose. Walton 13:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
44. Strong Support He could clearly use the tools. Oh, and the five attempts, I admire his tenacity. ROGER  13:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
45. Support - hahnchen 14:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. This user's administrative work is enough to convince me he should be given the tools, even if he doesn't write articles. - Zeibura 14:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Clearly needs the tools and, from all the evidence I've seen, would put them to good use. Will (aka Wimt) 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. Seems experienced and able to get what needs to be done, done. --omtay38 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Great guy, both on and off wiki, plus the good old cliche. Kwsn 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
50. Support I am still laughing at his replies to my own nominator, Stillstudying. A hard worker with a sense of humor!old windy bear 22:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
51. Much Support ~ Wikihermit 23:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
52. Strong Support Your dedication, civility, experence and clear need for tools far out whiehs any points raised by the oppostion . I wish you the best of Luck. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
53. Support per BigDT. H irohisat 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
54. Support I feel giving ST47 the admin tools has the potential to allow a lot of positive things to happen, which to me outweighs the lack of article work. CitiCat 02:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
55. It might have been better to ignore this instead of replying... but apart from that, nothing wrong. --Dark Falls 08:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
56. Support I am suprised ST47 has not been granted the tools sooner. Somitho 10:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
57. Impressive behind-the-scenes work, will probably have good uses for the tools to improve Misplaced Pages. I hope ST47 has taken the lessons from his last RfA to heart and do not expect problems. Kusma (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
58. Trust him not to do anything too crazy. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
59. Support per Majorly (this is a rite of passage thing?) Also, that someone retains the desire to help further after four previous requests is sufficient reason. LessHeard vanU 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
60. I missed it for this long? Support. —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
61. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
62. Support - An extremly able editor. Jhfireboy Talk 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
63. Peacent 03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
64. Support: This is long overdue. ST47 has been helping out around here for a long time and has shown true dedication to the project. --After Midnight 11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
65. Support See nothing now to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 15:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
66. Support - dedicated & capable individual who will make good use of the tools --Versageek 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
67. Support - know editor from RFCU clerking duties; isn't quite what I like in the perfect RFA candidate but there are many types that work out in the end; several RFA attempts and subsequent improvement demonstrates motivation; we're not related despite similar user names. VK35 22:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)